State v. Braden, 2014 Ohio 3385

Braden was convicted in Preble County Court of Common Pleas of burglary under R.C. 2911.12(A)(3) after a bench trial on September 13, 2013.
The indictment charged Braden with burglary; the case proceeded to a bench trial and Braden was found guilty and sentenced to two years in prison.
Dengler owned property at 4736 Somers-Gratis Rd., a maintained dwelling with lights on, locked front door, and furniture in the house, though vacant for months.
On December 19, 2012, Dengler and a coworker found Braden inside the house after approaching the property to investigate a missing tractor and a car.
Braden gave inconsistent explanations about the car and ownership (claiming it was his wife’s; actually owned by his girlfriend); the car functioned and Braden fled when confronted.
The house showed signs of forcible entry (broken window, dislodged screen); Braden was arrested shortly thereafter and defense witnesses testified about car mechanical issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove burglary under 2911.12(A)(3)	Braden’s guilt is supported by the evidence linking him to the trespass with intent to commit theft.	There was insufficient proof Braden entered with the requisite mens rea or intent.	Sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
Whether the conviction rested on improper inference stacking	State presented circumstantial evidence linking Braden to the crime without improper stacking.	Trial court relied on inferences based solely on other inferences.	No improper stacking; the evidence supported the conviction.
Whether the house was an "occupied structure" under R.C. 2909.01(C)(1)	The dwelling was maintained as a residential dwelling and was not abandoned.	House was not occupied because no tenant or owner resided there at the time.	House qualified as an occupied structure.
Whether knowledge of the structure being occupied was required by the statute	Trespass with knowledge of occupancy was required by the statute? (Braden’s view)	State must prove the defendant knew the structure was occupied.	No additional knowledge-of-occupancy element required; statute does not mandate that knowledge.

State v. Hoskins, 2013-Ohio-3580 (12th Dist. Warren No. CA2013-02-013 (2013)) (sufficiency review standard for criminal convictions)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (recitation of sufficiency standard (Jenks) for evidence)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for sufficiency of evidence; ‘reasonable doubt’)
State v. Cooper, 147 Ohio App.3d 116 (12th Dist. 2002) (limits on inferring from facts; non-stacking inference)
State v. Goss, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97348, 2012-Ohio-1951 (2012) (rebuttal of occupancy inference in burglary)
State v. Anderson, 2012-Ohio-3663 (9th Dist. Summit No. 26006) (distinguishes occupancy facts from condemned/abandoned dwelling)
State v. Calderwood, 194 Ohio App.3d 438 (2011-Ohio-2913) (occupancy where dwelling retained residential purpose)
State v. Burgos, 2006-Ohio-4305 (9th Dist.) (occupancy considerations in burglary)
State v. Ramey, 132 Ohio St.3d 309 (2012-Ohio-2904) (statutory interpretation principle: cannot add words to statute)